Conquer Club

Why is this in GD?
It's been discussed 2034804823 times, and people don't believe it should be implemented because it cuts away from the actual "Risk" aspect of the game.

shouldn't this be in s suggestion forum then?

In a 2 player game, if the first player gets 4 to start, then unless the map is so skewed that both players are directly opposite, he'll be able to find four territories to take with no chance of losing them the next round. Many places you wouldn't even need to deploy: if you have two territories next to one, you'll take it. Try applying this to any game you've just started, and see how many you can take over. It'll be a lot more than you could take with dice.

Not quite, and the first player could never take more than 2 terries....

start=3 per terry, so the first player places 4 armies on one terry. Same player takes terry 1, loses 3 in attack, has to leave one behind, so moves 3 in. this now means just 4 on the next attacking terry against 3, so has to use armies from another surrounding terry to reduce to 2 before attacking, then takes. great, but player then has 3 terries with just 1 army on each.

Why is this in GD?
It's been discussed 2034804823 times, and people don't believe it should be implemented because it cuts away from the actual "Risk" aspect of the game.

The game of Risk is called a strategic game....isn't it?

I was asked to post this for discussion.

Why is this in GD?
It's been discussed 2034804823 times, and people don't believe it should be implemented because it cuts away from the actual "Risk" aspect of the game.

Apart from the obviously silly number which has nothing positive, I fail to undertstand hwo you can say this. How many threads appear on this forum about the dice????????

I agree with Fruitcake's comment about strategic thinking. I play no dice risk all the time, but then maybe that is because I think skill comes from this strategic thinking and not luck...

a simple answer: NO

the dice are the heart of the game, it wouldn't be fun anymore if there wasn't a sort of risk to it, and what would you do in cases like 11 vs 10, i won a roll like this without losing any armies with you solution it would have resulted in losing all my armies. but what about the crazy attack: 20 vs 33? 5 vs 9?

what about in games like 2.1 or maps where players get 5+ men, they could place a 2, a 2 and a 1 and guarantie that they take 2 areas for sure, this cuts their opponent down to 4 guys per round (an even bigger effect in world 2.1)

Good point, bet Fruit hadn't though about that, I had not, never play it myself. Notwithstanding that...it would be an option, not compulsory...surely this increases the attractiveness of the site rather than detracts from it.

Fruitcake wrote:Not quite, and the first player could never take more than 2 terries....

start=3 per terry, so the first player places 4 armies on one terry. Same player takes terry 1, loses 3 in attack, has to leave one behind, so moves 3 in. this now means just 4 on the next attacking terry against 3, so has to use armies from another surrounding terry to reduce to 2 before attacking, then takes. great, but player then has 3 terries with just 1 army on each.

If this ever gets implemented (which it won't, it's been suggested and rejected because it doesn't make sense), sign me up for a hundred games against you. You're forgetting that you start with more than one territory, so there are support troops scattered around the map. It would be very unlikely to come up with a drop where you CAN'T take 3 territories and not leave any singles exposed.

a simple answer: NO

the dice are the heart of the game, it wouldn't be fun anymore if there wasn't a sort of risk to it, and what would you do in cases like 11 vs 10, i won a roll like this without losing any armies with you solution it would have resulted in losing all my armies. but what about the crazy attack: 20 vs 33? 5 vs 9?

I disagree, dice are not at the heart of the game, strategy is.
your examples:
11v10, that is why strategy would be more important.
20v33? 5vs9, I think the pertinant word is 'crazy'

If this ever gets implemented (which it won't, it's been suggested and rejected because it doesn't make sense), sign me up for a hundred games against you. You're forgetting that you start with more than one territory, so there are support troops scattered around the map. It would be very unlikely to come up with a drop where you CAN'T take 3 territories and not leave any singles exposed.

have you played a no dice game?

i want a poll, damnit!!! where is the poll!! a guy as clever as you are, and you can't figure out how to add a poll?!! get with it fruity!!!-0

Further to the no dice thread. Give your vote.

Remember, this is as an option, it does not mean you have to play it.

err, sorry owen, slight cock up in the brain department there....done...perhaps one the mighty mods could tie these 2 together.

I love the idea as i think the dice play too much of a role in deciding the winner of a game. Got my support.

Mr Unbeatable wrote:I love the idea as i think the dice play too much of a role in deciding the winner of a game. Got my support.

yeah, dice deciding the game in a BOARD GAME is just ridiculous... ahem...-0

p.s.-where is the poll?!!!

is this merged yet? ha!! you are killing me today fruity!!! let me cast my vote... oh wait, since we cast the dice, maybe i shouldn't use that term...-0

I believe this belongs here

mailed the mighty wicked to ask for it to be merged owen, just for you

Thanks wacicha, still learning about this forum....and how.

owenshooter wrote:i want a poll, damnit!!! where is the poll!! a guy as clever as you are, and you can't figure out how to add a poll?!! get with it fruity!!!-0

Agreed!


Personally i instinctively don;t like the idea but you make some good points.

For me it would mean that a good lump of the emotion and drama would be taken out of the game.
Imagine Formula one without the crashes! Sheese that would be like watching pants go around in a washing machine.

Imagine in Football if every decision, in every game were correct and decided by flawless computers which measured every movement.
It would take away a huge portion of the injustice which keeps us all talking in pubs and coming back for more. The game requires a good but imperfect referee. Our 'Random' dice serve as our flawed adjudicator.


The element of luck keeps the best players trying and the worst interested.
If people wanted purely a battle of unadulterated wits, CC would stand for Chess Club!
The dice act as a cushion to soften the acceptance of our intellectual inadequacies and a brake on our cognitive bravura.

In short by taking away the dice you fundamentally alter the dynamics and essence of the game.

love,
jim

Right here's a question...

If both sides lose the same amount of armies - what happens when it's 2 or 3 vs 1...

Who wins?

C.

Worst idea ever.

I am all for it!

that way when it is merged i can't be wrong!

Fruitcake wrote:have you played a no dice game?

Yeah, all the time, right after I play tic-tac-toe, connect four, and my other favourite predetermined games. Then I pick up a rock and drop it to see if it will fall: I still think someday it won't.

Audax wrote:

Why is this in GD?
It's been discussed 2034804823 times, and people don't believe it should be implemented because it cuts away from the actual "Risk" aspect of the game.

Apart from the obviously silly number which has nothing positive, I fail to undertstand hwo you can say this. How many threads appear on this forum about the dice????????

Based on your low post count I'm going to assume that you don't check the forums a whole lot.

I've seen more threads about dice then on any other subject even kind-of sort-of maybe relevant to CC.